Workin' Progress

Listen to Employment Lawyers chat about labour human trafficking allegations in Osmani v. Universal Structural Restorations Ltd., 2022 ONSC 6979. If you want to chat more about this case, contact Nadia at [email protected] or Antonio at [email protected]  

Listen to employment lawyers, Nadia Halum Arauz and Antonio F. Urdaneta talking about different elements that employers and employees must consider about preventing competition or competing after departing from an employment relationship. If you have questions about the information in this episode, feel free to contact:Nadia at [email protected] orAntonio at [email protected] regularly assists employees and employers while Antonio focuses on assisting employers.  

If you have specific questions about this topic, contact Nadia at [email protected] or Antonio at [email protected]  

Ontario's government added the right to disconnect to workplace's minimum standards laws. Now, employers must have a written policy about disconnecting from work.  Listen to employment lawyers Nadia Halum Arauz and Antonio Urdaneta discuss about this right to disconnect.To reach Nadia click: Nadia Halum ArauzTo reach Antonio click: Antonio Urdaneta

Listen to employment lawyers Nadia Halum Arauz and Antonio Urdaneta discuss about employers' vaccination policies and the different issues both employers and employees may be facing with in person work during the pandemic, from different perspectives, including human rights, health and safety, wrongful terminations and employers' duty of care. To reach Nadia click: Nadia Halum ArauzTo reach Antonio click: Antonio Urdaneta

Generally, a substantial reduction or elimination of hours and wages would be consider a constructive dismissal, unless there is a contract that says otherwise. And employers are liable for termination notice or pay instead of that notice, and other entitlements and damages flowing out of the constructive dismissal. As a response to the pandemic, the Infectious Disease Emergency Leave (IDEL), regulation made under the authority of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, came into force. Its rules transform the understanding of constructive dismissals. In particular, reduction or elimination of hours and wages is deemed an emergency leave under IDEL and not a constructive dismissal. But for what purpose? Can an employee bring a lawsuit against an employer for constructive dismissal because they experienced elimination of hours of work? Listen to Nadia and Antonio talking about this issue.  To reach Nadia click: Nadia Halum ArauzTo reach Antonio click: Antonio Urdaneta

Generally, a substantial reduction or elimination of hours and wages would be consider a constructive dismissal. And employers are liable for termination notice or pay instead of that notice, and other entitlements and damages flowing out of the constructive dismissal. As a response to the pandemic, the Infectious Disease Emergency Leave (IDEL), regulation made under the authority of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, came into force. Its rules transform the understanding of constructive dismissals. In particular, reduction or elimination of hours and wages is deemed an emergency leave under IDEL and not a constructive dismissal. But for what purpose? Can an employee bring a lawsuit against an employer for constructive dismissal because they experienced elimination of hours of work? Listen to Nadia and Antonio talking about this issue.  To reach Nadia click: Nadia Halum Arauz To reach Antonio click: Antonio Urdaneta

Ontario's court recognized a wrongdoing, harassment in internet communications (Internet Harassment),  in Caplan v. Atas. Listen to employment, labour and workplace human rights lawyers, Nadia Halum Arauz and Antonio Urdaneta talking about the impact of this decision in their areas.  Comments or questions? Contact Nadia Halum Arauz or Antonio Urdaneta.   

Reach out to Nadia Halum arauz or Antonio F. Urdaneta for more information. 

Reach out to Nadia Halum arauz or Antonio F. Urdaneta for more information. Find in this episode at:2:10 Principle of Good Faith Performance of Contracts7:05 Practical Perspectives of Good Faith Performance in Employment Agreements 10:10 Evolution of Good Faith Performance in Employment Agreements And cases:Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71 Matthews v. Ocean Nutrition Canada Ltd., 2020 SCC 26 C.M. Callow Inc. v. Zollinger, 2020 SCC 45  

You can contact Nadia Halum Arauz here.  You can reach Antonio F. Urdaneta here.  Cases, laws or regulations mentioned in the episode: Matthews v. Ocean Nutrition Canada Ltd., 2020 SCC 26 (CanLII)

You can contact Nadia Halum Arauz here.  You can reach Antonio F. Urdaneta here.  Cases, laws and regulations mentioned in the episode:O. Reg. 228/20: Infectious Disease Emergency Leave Farber v Royal Trust Co., 1997 CanLII 387 (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 846Potter v New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, 2015 SCC 10Bevilacqua v Gracious Living Corporation, 2016 ONSC 4127

You can contact Nadia Halum Arauz here. You can reach Antonio F. Urdaneta here. Cases mentioned by co-hosts:671122 Ontario Ltd. v. Sagaz Industries Canada Inc., 2001 SCC 59 (CanLII), [2001] 2 SCR 983People of the State of California and UBER Technologies Inc. and Lyft Inc. Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior CourtOlson v. California (C.D. Cal., Feb. 10, 2020), 2020 WL 905572

You can contact Nadia Halum Arauz here. You can reach Antonio F. Urdaneta here. Cases mentioned by co-hosts:Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller, 2020 SCC 16 (CanLII)Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs 

If you have questions and comments click Nadia Halum Arauz  or Antonio F. Urdaneta to reach out to the Co-Hosts.  

If you have questions and comments click Nadia Halum Arauz  or Antonio F. Urdaneta to reach out to the Co-Hosts.  

If you have questions and comments click Nadia Halum Arauz  or Antonio F. Urdaneta to reach out to the Co-Hosts.